Officials Attack Mayor’s Reform Petition

Members of the Los Angeles City Council on Friday blasted Mayor Richard Riordan’s petition to create an elected government reform panel, calling it invalid because the way panel members would be elected has been changed since the signatures were gathered.

U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer, however, issued a ruling late Friday that appears to reject the council’s arguments.

Although the council took no formal action on the petition, the harsh criticism voiced by a majority of members during their session Friday indicated the council is willing to continue fighting to keep the measure off the April ballot.

“We really don’t have the option to put the petition, as circulated, on the ballot,” Councilwoman Ruth Galanter said.

The crux of the debate is language in Riordan’s petition providing that members of the reform panel shall be elected on a “citywide” basis.

After city officials raised legal concerns about the petition, Pfaelzer ruled, in a suit filed by the mayor, that the election should be held in April. But she also ruled that members of the reform panel should be elected by district to ensure that minority voters are fairly represented.

Most council members argued Friday that changing the petition to such a degree after 304,000 citizens have already signed it invalidates their signatures.

But Pfaelzer appears to disagree. In a memo Friday to both the mayor and council on her earlier decision, Pfaelzer noted that Riordan and his supporters circulated the petition under the existing state law, which called for an at-large election. Because an at-large election would violate the Federal Voting Rights Act and diminish minority representation on the panel, Pfaelzer ruled the election should instead be held by district.

*

“If the City [Council] is contending that . . . the proper remedy is to order the plaintiffs to circulate a new petition proposing a charter commission elected by district, the city does not articulate the legal basis for such a remedy,” she ruled--apparently upholding the validity of the petition.

The debate is the latest chapter in an ongoing political struggle between the council and the mayor over how to reform the 71-year-old charter that serves as the city’s constitution.

The City Council has already created an advisory panel to study reform measures, which the council can reject, rewrite or place on the ballot for voters’ approval or rejection.

Riordan’s petition, however, asks voters to create an elected panel with the power to put reform measures directly on the ballot, without council approval. Riordan has said true reform can come only from a panel that is independent of the council.

Bill Wardlaw, Riordan’s political advisor and longtime friend, took issue with the council’s criticism of the petition, saying the council is simply trying to deny the people the right to vote on the reform measure.

“It’s an embarrassment what took place,” he said, referring to the council criticism. “This is the council trying to deny the people the right to participate.”

During the council meeting, Councilman Mike Hernandez harshly criticized Riordan, saying his petition is an effort to increase the mayor’s power under the guise of government reform. “‘This is a movement by the mayor to buy the city, under the guise of trying to improve the city,” he said.

Riordan funded the signature-gathering drive with $400,000 of his own money.

*

The issue of whether the petition can be changed after signatures have been collected was also raised Friday by state Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles), who has long criticized Riordan’s reform efforts and who is expected to run for mayor in April.

Hayden distributed a letter to the council from Frederic D. Woocher, an attorney specializing in referendum and initiative law, who said Riordan’s petition is “clearly invalid” because of the changes called for by Pfaelzer.

In fact, Woocher said the council cannot put Riordan’s petition on the ballot after such a substantial change.

Hayden argued the petition misleads voters into thinking the election would be at-large, when in fact it will be held by district.

“Nothing makes voters more incensed than to find they have been misled by the fine print,” he said.

Few council members had read Pfaelzer’s ruling late Friday, but the council is scheduled to discuss the matter at its Tuesday meeting.

The council could decide to appeal Pfaelzer’s ruling to a higher federal court and further delay a decision to put Riordan’s measure on the ballot.

City Clerk J. Michael Carey said the council must act by next week in order to have the measure appear on the ballot for citywide elections April 8.

If the measure makes the ballot, candidates for the reform panel would be able to file a declaration of candidacy beginning Jan. 22. On Jan. 27, candidates could begin circulating nominating petitions to qualify for the ballot.

Candidates would have to collect the signatures of 500 city voters and pay a $300 filing fee by Feb. 18 to appear on the ballot. The fee is waived if a candidate can collect 1,000 signatures.